Big Bang

[jonmichael818]

How can anyone believe in the Big Bang?

Because evidence and observation shows us this is what likely happened.

You make up a whole bunch of hypotheticals, you then calculate a whole set of mathematical equations made to custom fit the hypotheticals, and you call it a scientific theory.

If by hypotheticals you mean theories that describe observational and experimentally verifiable phenomonon, than ok.
The equations are introduced to explain the observational and experimentally verifiabe phenomonon that we see naturally occuring.

I call it scientific nonsense, which only the most gullible students are led to believe.

The theories are the most accurate that mankind has ever come up with and nothing else comes close. So, I suppose if you want to call that gullible than that is your prerogative.

The fact of the matter is Big Bang is not a theory, it's a modern day myth based on make-belief ideas such as inflation (100% imaginary), dark-matter (100% imaginary) and dark-energy (100% imaginary), none of which has been or can be scientifically verified since they all lack any kind of supporting evidence and are purely hypothetical.

Big bang was around before inflation, dark matter and dark energy were postulated. In fact the prevailing theory was that the universe was a steady state universe until observation showed us otherwise.

God did it.

Any proof?

 

[jonmichael818]

Yep. It would seem they give more honor to the gods of big bang theory than to the God of creation.

I give more honor to reason, logic, and the scientific process.

 

[sandwiches]

Yep. It would seem they give more honor to the gods of big bang theory than to the God of creation.

So, dishonesty is more honorable now? Bizarre...

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. It would seem they give more honor to the gods of big bang theory than to the God of creation.

Daniel 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Notice in the previous verse that the Antichrist will be a ... well ... notice the previous verse.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Daniel 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Notice in the previous verse that the Antichrist will be a ... well ... notice the previous verse.

"As I was reading it, I told my mother, “I can tell two
things about J. K. Rowling: She is a Christian and she isn’t
a vegetarian.” I knew this because there wasn’t much vegetarian
food at Hogwarts, unlike some vegetarian places in
fantasy books, like Tom Bombadil’s house in J. R. R.
Tolkien’s​

​

​

​

Lord of the Rings and Medwyn’s Hidden Valley in
Lloyd Alexander’s The Book of Three. I knew J. K. Rowling
was Christian because Kwanzaa and Hanukah and​

Ramadan weren’t celebrated at Hogwarts."

Notice also, that J.K. Rowling is not a vegetarian.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can't measure the length of a stick, if I can't know where the beginning (one end) of the stick is. How do you guys do it?

Ultimately, we make basic assumptions that might very well be wrong. Shortly after the 'unknown era', everything exists as a tiny, but expanding, ball of spacetime and dense energy. The entire universe for the past 13.5 billion years has been expanding from a tiny ball of spacetime and dense energy - so we make the assumption that, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second earlier, it was even smaller. We could be wrong, the universe could be a banana before then, and our physics are just on the cusp of making that discovery

When we say the laws of physics break down, they obviously don't in a literal sense. It's just that the theories we use conflict. A singularity is just (near or actual) infinitely small, infinitely dense point of space, time, and energy (well, it's where anything goes to infinity; black holes are singularities of gravity, for instance).

Bottom line is, we assume, not without reason, that the universe was even smaller prior to that intractable moment.

 

[Chesterton]

Ultimately, we make basic assumptions that might very well be wrong. Shortly after the 'unknown era', everything exists as a tiny, but expanding, ball of spacetime and dense energy. The entire universe for the past 13.5 billion years has been expanding from a tiny ball of spacetime and dense energy - so we make the assumption that, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second earlier, it was even smaller. We could be wrong, the universe could be a banana before then, and our physics are just on the cusp of making that discovery

When we say the laws of physics break down, they obviously don't in a literal sense. It's just that the theories we use conflict. A singularity is just (near or actual) infinitely small, infinitely dense point of space, time, and energy (well, it's where anything goes to infinity; black holes are singularities of gravity, for instance).

Bottom line is, we assume, not without reason, that the universe was even smaller prior to that intractable moment.

I'm trying to understand why you say "we don't know if there was a beginning of the universe". Does it hinge on on what you say above about "near or actual", and the fact that we don't know which? I'm thinking that if the singularity was actually infinitely small, it could be effectively defined as "nothing", right? (As something infinitely big could be effectively defined as "everything".) If we knew that were the case, we'd pretty much have to say there was an absolute beginning. But if it was just nearly infinitely small before 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds, then as you say it could have been a banana or lots of other things. Am I on track?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm trying to understand why you say "we don't know if there was a beginning of the universe". Does it hinge on on what you say above about "near or actual", and the fact that we don't know which?

Both facts are related, yes, in that we can't take evidence we have now and describe with any accuracy what happened.

I'm thinking that if the singularity was actually infinitely small, it could be effectively defined as "nothing", right? (As something infinitely big could be effectively defined as "everything".) If we knew that were the case, we'd pretty much have to say there was an absolute beginning. But if it was just nearly infinitely small before 10[sup]-43[/sup] seconds, then as you say it could have been a banana or lots of other things. Am I on track?

Well, an actual infinity, an infinitely small point, is still a thing. It's just very small (infinitely so ). But yea, we just don't know if it was an actual or a 'very near' infinity. It gets smaller and smaller and smaller, so, presumably, it does become a singularity - it's just a question of whether it goes any smaller. 10[sup]-43[/sup] s is the theoretical time between this singularity existing and it expanding to a size we can begin to model - it could be that, prior to the size we can model, it actually suddenly slows down immensely.

So maybe there was the singularity, then a trillion years of very slow expansion, then a sudden rapid expansion - which we can then measure. That, of course, would mean the universe is far older than 13.5 billion years.

Which brings me nicely back to my original point: we don't know if the universe is only 13.5 billion years old, because, as I said, it could be a trillion years older.

 

[corvus_corax]

Which brings me nicely back to my original point: we don't know if the universe is only 13.5 billion years old, because, as I said, it could be a trillion years older.

From what little I understand, we can only measure the age of the *observable* universe, which means that the actual *full* (and not observable) universe may be much older than what we can perceive.

Is this correct, or am I completely off base?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From what little I understand, we can only measure the age of the *observable* universe, which means that the actual *full* (and not observable) universe may be much older than what we can perceive.

Is this correct, or am I completely off base?

The observable universe is related to the horizon problem of the Big Bang theory. As everyone knows, we can look into the past by looking at very old galaxies and things, but there are obviously galaxies 5 billion lightyears away that haven't had their light reach us yet. Similarly, the 'horizon', the deepest/farthest we can see before we reach an epoch when no light was being emitted, is ostensibly x billion lightyears away - but it really contains galaxies and things as old and developed as our own. But we can't see them.

So the size of the universe is damn hard to work out. The observable universe is 46 billion light years (not 2 x 13.5, as some people quite reasonably assume) in radius, but who knows how much bigger it is.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, I understand better now why you say we don't know about a beginning. But I'm going to try once more on this:

10[sup]-43[/sup] is the theoretical time between this singularity existing and it expanding to a size we can begin to model...

How do you measure the time starting from a present tense verb like "existing"? It doesn't indicate any point from which to measure.

Also, if we subtract a number from itself we get 0. How can t = 10[sup]-43[/sup] be even theoretically meaningful if t = 0 is not theoretically meaningful?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The complication is in oversimplifying the speed limit of the universe. Bizarrely, space can expand at faster than the speed of light, without violating relativity. This occurred during an early phase of the Big Bang known as the Inflation period. It's no longer that fast, but there it is.

Doesn't a speed or velocity have to be taken relative to something? How can nothingness (space) even have a velocity? Can't we only measure a velocity based on us relative to an observable entity?

So, in your scenario, light has taken 12 billion years to traverse space and reach the Earth. Space has expanded, the quasar has moved, but that initial emmitted photon has, by hook or by crook, taken 12 billion years to get here. Which is fine and dandy; what's the problem?

Is light outside of space? Or does light get affected by the expanding space that it is traveling through?

 

[jonmichael818]

Doesn't a speed or velocity have to be taken relative to something?

Its observed relative to us.

How can nothingness (space) even have a velocity?

Space is not nothingness.

Can't we only measure a velocity based on us relative to an observable entity?

Yes. We measure the velocity of distant galaxies and supernova relative to us.

 

[Doveaman]

Because evidence and observation shows us this is what likely happened.

Fallible human interpretation of evidence and observations shows you this is what likely happened. Fallible human interpretation can take a hike.

If by hypotheticals you mean theories that describe observational and experimentally verifiable phenomonon, than ok.

No, I mean the non-observed and non-verifiable foundations upon which the big bang model stands or falls: inflation, dark matter and dark energy.

The equations are introduced to explain the observational and experimentally verifiabe phenomonon that we see naturally occuring.

Equations can be introduced to fit anything.

The theories are the most accurate that mankind has ever come up with and nothing else comes close.

I think what you mean to say is that they are the most popular, but certainly not the most accurate, because those gods of the gaps don't exist. They are only gap fillers all made up to fill the gaps in the big bang model. You need to get out more.

So, I suppose if you want to call that gullible than that is your prerogative.

Anyone who believes in the invisible, undetectable, unverifiable gods of big bang theory are gullible.

Big bang was around before inflation, dark matter and dark energy were postulated.

And now big bang cannot survive without them. Big bang as we know it today is sustained by these gods of the gaps.

In fact the prevailing theory was that the universe was a steady state universe until observation showed us otherwise.

The prevailing theory was that the big bang happened until observation showed us otherwise. So to keep the dead theory alive the gods of the gaps were introduced.

Any proof?

Yes.

 

[jonmichael818]

Fallible human interpretation of evidence and observations shows you this is what likely happened. Fallible human interpretation can take a hike.

Yes, human interpretation can be fallible, but these interpretations are the most accurate we have. Human interpretation is all we have to work with, so if you want to throw that out, ok. What are we left with, dog or cat interpretation.

No, I mean the non-observed and non-verifiable foundations upon which the big bang model stands or falls: inflation, dark matter and dark energy.

Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are simply names given to certain phenomonon that while we have yet to fully detect their existence directly, we see their effects on the universe around us.

Equations can be introduced to fit anything.

Sure, but these equations are not introduced to fit anything, they are used to describe what we observe.

I think what you mean to say is that they are the most popular, but certainly not the most accurate, because those gods of the gaps don't exist.

What theories are more accurate?

They are only gap fillers all made up to fill the gaps in the big bang model.

Science has lots of gaps, and science fully recognizes this fact. That is precisely why we continue to try and find the truth.
The three phenomena in question are hypothesized to explain the effects we see on our universe.

You need to get out more.

Actually, I probably get out a little more than I should.

And now big bang cannot survive without them. Big bang as we know it today is sustained by these gods of the gaps.

Actually, you are kind of right. Let me explain.

Lets say their is a scientist here on earth that only knows about the moon, but not the sun. He only knows about the moon because he is only awake at night. Yet according to his calculations there must exist a much greater source of energy to sustain the amount of plants and life on earth. So he makes the hypothesis that a sun must exist. One day he wakes up a liitle earlier and makes the discovery that the sun does exist.
The moon and the sun are both needed in order for the conditions on earth to be exactly as they are.

The prevailing theory was that the big bang happened until observation showed us otherwise. So to keep the dead theory alive the gods of the gaps were introduced.

Observation has not shown us that the big bang is incorrect, just that our understanding (of what the big bang is and how it happened and how it continues to happen) is incomplete.

Yes.

like what?

 

[jonmichael818]

The most convincing observational evidence for the big bang comes from the WMAP:

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a NASA Explorer mission that launched June 2001 to make fundamental measurements of cosmology -- the study of the properties of our universe as a whole. WMAP has been stunningly successful, producing our new Standard Model of Cosmology.-NASA.gov

Here are the WMAP's top ten:

1. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the univers</SPAN>e) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
2. WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!
3. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude
4. The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)
5. WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)
6. WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article
7. WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008
8. WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling out well-known textbook models for the first time.
9. The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new physics in the early universe.
10. Since 2000, the three most highly cited papers in all of physics and astronomy are WMAP scientific papers.-NASA.gov

Also:

WMAP has detected a key signature of inflation.-NASA.gov

 

[Doveaman]

The most convincing observational evidence for the big bang comes from the WMAP:

The most convincing observational evidence for no big bang comes from observation:

YouTube - The Big Bang Never Happened Part 3

 

[Nathan Poe]

Fallible human interpretation of evidence and observations shows you this is what likely happened. Fallible human interpretation can take a hike.

Start hiking, fallible human.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, human interpretation can be fallible, but these interpretations are the most accurate we have. Human interpretation is all we have to work with, so if you want to throw that out, ok. What are we left with, dog or cat interpretation.

No, divine interpretation:

"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Cor 2:13-14.

Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are simply names given to certain phenomonon that while we have yet to fully detect their existence directly, we see their effects on the universe around us.

I say the effects we see are the result of God Energy.

Sure, but these equations are not introduced to fit anything, they are used to describe what we observe.

A scientist should never be a slave to equations or they will end up with science fiction:

"Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose" - Albert Einstein.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"- Albert Einstein.

What theories are more accurate?

Any theory that is less than 96% hypothetical is more accurate.

Science has lots of gaps, and science fully recognizes this fact.

The big bang model is an embarrassing 4% physics and 96% gap.

"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical." - Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

That is precisely why we continue to try and find the truth.

Truth is not found in scientific theories. Truth is found in religion.

The three phenomena in question are hypothesized to explain the effects we see on our universe.

The three phenomena in question are hypothesized to hide the fact that you do not know what you are seeing in our universe.

Actually, I probably get out a little more than I should.

That's probably why your view of reality is only a fantasy.

Actually, you are kind of right. Let me explain.

Lets say their is a scientist here on earth that only knows about the moon, but not the sun. He only knows about the moon because he is only awake at night. Yet according to his calculations there must exist a much greater source of energy to sustain the amount of plants and life on earth. So he makes the hypothesis that a sun must exist. One day he wakes up a liitle earlier and makes the discovery that the sun does exist.
The moon and the sun are both needed in order for the conditions on earth to be exactly as they are.

The problem with your analogy is that the big bang gods of the gaps are not necessary to explain what we do observe. That's why I said you need to get out more; you are stuck on a dead theory.

Observation has not shown us that the big bang is incorrect, just that our understanding (of what the big bang is and how it happened and how it continues to happen) is incomplete.

See my previous post. Big bang is a falsified and dead theory.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, divine interpretation:

"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Cor 2:13-14.

How... human. And fallible.

I say the effects we see are the result of God Energy.

I say you're a fallible human.